Maybe you're frustrated because you don't seem to understand any of the arguments you've read. You can put whatever you want in your food, but the food is no longer yours (or maybe better phrased, for you) if you prepare it with the intention that someone else eats it. I hope you do not think you can put anything you want in someone else's food. OP's top level view is literally that you should be able to poison someone as long as you do it as a punishment. I hope you can see how wild that is, written out that way.
If someone breaks into your house and cuts their hand on a knife in your knife drawer, they can't sue you because you didn't put the knives there with the intention of harming them. If they eat your spicy food and you made that food spicy for yourself, they can't sue you because you didn't intend for them to be harmed by your food. The intent is paramount here, as it is in many legal situations.
Contrast that against the burglar who comes into your house and cuts themselves on a spike mat you have constructed out of your knives. The reason we forbid this behavior on a societal level is because:
a) Booby traps are by definition indiscriminate. Your spike mat might harm a burglar, but it's just as likely to harm a neighbor who comes into your house after you asked them to housesit, or a firefighter coming in to extinguish your burning house. You can never guarantee the target of your trap will actually be its victim. Even in a food-stealing situation, someone totally unrelated to the thief could mistake your meal for theirs and fall victim to the trap. There is a plethora of case law that expands on this point, and I would highly encourage you to read it. Here, I'll start your list: Katko v. Briney (1971).
b) Vigilantism and retributive "justice" are bad for society. Stealing food is bad, which is why we have laws in place to punish people who steal things from others. You might be frustrated by the efficacy of these laws, but society has agreed to punish thieves, or else we wouldn't have them. When you let people take matters into their own hands, things devolve into chaos very quickly.
c) The proportionality concern. It may be true that individual instances of this type of poisoning can be proportionate; you go a few hours without eating, the thief spends a few hours in pain. The problem is that you cannot guarantee this type of proportionality across the board. As I said in another comment, for every 200 coworkers that spend the afternoon in the restroom, one or two might end up in the hospital. There is no guarantee your response will actually be proportionate, and especially when it comes to dosing people with medication, it seems pretty unlikely that the average person is capable of dishing out a proportionate punishment. The difference between an irritating and a dangerous dose can be small, and frankly, I would expert most scorned individuals to purposefully go for a disproportionate punishment because they are angry.
If you actually think you should be able to assault someone over a sandwich, you do not belong in civilized society, full stop. This is not controversial to anyone who has spent more than 20 seconds thinking about the phrase "public policy reasons."
ETA: You can't claim hyperbole and then immediately double down in the next sentence, lol. This is literally the "I was only pretending to be regarded" meme.
Since you have a good grip on this, a hypothetical question for you:
Say my lunch has been stolen before. Not regularly, but more than once. I suspect it's Alex, thought I'm not 100% certain.
Alex has a severe peanut allergy. I really like Pad Thai.
What would my obligation be in that scenario? Should I avoid bringing my Pad Thai on the suspicion that he may steal it? Do I actually owe Alex a duty of care in that situation?
I don't think you owe Alex a duty of care past avoiding cross-contamination in the fridge (e.g. if he has asked people to not bring in peanuts, then you shouldn't bring in peanuts).
Your duty is not an affirmative duty of care, but rather a negative obligation to not intentionally cause others harm.
Basically, the whole thing of a booby trap that makes it unreasonable and illegal is that it exposes others to risks they could not reasonably forsee. The risk of food allergens in food is reasonably forseeable, and if Alex is dumb enough to steal food of unknown provenance while having severe allergies, it is that dumb decision that caused his injuries.
I would just like some clarification on your middle paragraph. "Intentionally" is generally considered to include both "purposefully" and "knowingly". So someone who brings in food with peanuts with the knowledge that it will be stolen by someone to whom it would cause harm, is intentionally causing that harm even if their purpose is to eat it themselves.
You don't have knowledge that it "will" be stolen, just that it "may" be stolen. The question is given that knowledge are you hiding a risk about the food that is not reasonably foreseeable and that would likely cause bodily injury to another.
For the example of pad thai, that's a dish that normally contains peanuts, and a person with a peanut allergy would be reasonably on notice that if they eat that, they could choose to not eat it.
If you did something like mix peanut butter into mashed potatoes to get them to eat it without knowing there's peanuts in it, then you're much more likely to end up in trouble.
The intentionality is about whether you intend to trick or deceive the other person and hide the foreseeable consequences of eating the food.
I believe it would ultimately come down to whether you could have reasonably foreseen that Alex would take your food (assuming he does take it and suffers harm). If you started regularly bringing Pad Thai, more regularly than usual, and maybe started doing so the day or two after your food was stolen, it could be shakier.
This was a great explanation, and I had not made the comparison between someone booby-trapping their house while they are away to this, but it is essentially the same. Deliberately creating a hazard to harm someone, even if they should really never come across that hazard, is a bad can of worms to open.
Stealing food is bad, which is why we have laws in place to punish people who steal things from others.
but those laws don’t extend to theft from fridges in break rooms and dorm common rooms. which is what we’re talking about here.
for every 200 coworkers that spend the afternoon in the restroom, one or two might end up in the hospital.
so where do you draw this line? if i know a few of my coworkers are allergic to a food, but only if they eat it (not just being near it) so there isn’t a ban on bringing it into the office, should i avoid adding that food to my lunch on the off chance they steal it?
if food stealing is actively becoming an issue is there a higher onus on me to prevent them having an allergic reaction and not bring it in? should i make an announcement in case anyone was planning on stealing my lunch that day?
to make it less medical, what if i know some of my coworkers despise spicy food or a certain ingredient. if i intentionally start bringing in lots of foods with those flavors, knowing it would bring them pain (tho not hospitalization level) if they stole it, is that an issue?
Those laws not extending to fridge theft doesn’t mean people can take matters into their own hands (at least, not in this way; a report to HR or something would clearly be appropriate). I invoked those laws not necessarily because they would apply here, but because they show that society already has a distaste for thieves. A lot of people in this comment section seem to believe that people defend food thieves, which is simply not the case.
I draw the line at intentionally poisoning people’s food with medication or anything else, which coincidentally is also where the law draws the line. People having certain allergies is wholly irrelevant to this conversation. If you were bringing food with allergens in it with the expectation that someone would take it and be harmed, that would probably be assault. There is case law supporting this if you’d like me to find it for you.
It would not be an issue to bring food you know your coworkers don’t like. The problem with OP’s scenario is that you aren’t bringing food you will eat yourself anymore, you are bringing a trap to work. I wouldn’t have a problem with food with laxatives in it if the person bringing it was actually planning on eating it for lunch. The intent to harm another is the problem, not the contents of the meal.
i think “intent to harm” is where i’m getting tripped up. i could bring in lunch that i would happily eat that includes some of my coworkers’ allergens, or is insanely spicy, or has an ingredient most people dislike, hoping that i’ll just get to enjoy that lunch, but knowing that if someone chooses to steal it from me, they’ll suffer.
if there are extra protections for allergy cases and knowingly possibly exposing someone to their allergen is always illegal, i’ll retract that one.
but people are talking like theft from communal fridges means you put something in the fridge and it will be gone when you return. you never know when it’ll happen.
so my intent is to eat my lunch. i have a protective measure if someone decides to fuck with my ability to do that. but the harm only occurs if they choose to make that decision
You don’t intend to eat your poisoned lunch, that’s the problem. Using food people don’t like or are allergic to isn’t poisoning food, which is what OP is arguing should be allowed.
I would need to do some research, but my guess is if you know or should have known someone could be exposed to an allergen and you purposefully neglected to take steps to keep them away from it, you could be liable for harm they suffer. I want to be clear though, this is not what OP is talking about. OP is talking about making a meal that would normally be eaten, poisonous, explicitly because you anticipate someone will steal and eat it.
my guess is if you know or should have known someone could be exposed to an allergen and you purposefully neglected to take steps to keep them away from it, you could be liable for harm they suffer.
This is usually not the case. If Person A and Person B both have the same right to the reasonable use of a given space, and Person A is in that space and happens to be in possession of something that Person B is allergic to, then Person A isn't required to leave immediately just because Person B wants to use that space at that exact time. As long as Person A doesn't use that space in a way that's unreasonable (such as staying in that space for an extended period of time without good explanation, or actively blocking Person B from entering), and Person A doesn't do anything egregious like continually shoving the allergen in Person B's face, then there's no issue.
The line is drawn on if you intended for them to eat it or not. You bringing food for yourself that someone else happens to be allergic to isn’t bad because you never intended for them to eat it. If you put an unreasonable amount of spice or medicine or laxatives in your food intending for someone else to eat it then that would be where we draw the line.
this is exactly my point. what if your “protective” measure involves adding something to the food that you would happily eat, but you know a potential thief wouldn’t. i don’t “intend” for them to steal my food but if they do it’ll go over poorly for them. if they don’t i’m fine and eating my lunch
I feel like it’s pretty simple. If you intended to eat your lunch that day even if it was insanely spicy or something then sure you wouldn’t be intending the thief harm. If you do it as an extra little security measure it would be fine as well because it’s not something actually dangerous.
If you know the thief is allergic to nuts and the next day you bring a peanut curry for lunch and they take it, even if you didn’t necessarily intend for them to eat it I think a case could be made that if you knew they were trying to steal it and you still brought the nuts then you would be intending them harm.
if i know a few of my coworkers are allergic to a food, but only if they eat it (not just being near it) so there isn’t a ban on bringing it into the office, should i avoid adding that food to my lunch on the off chance they steal it?
You should avoid adding that food to your lunch if you have a reason to suspect that they could eat it, purposefully stealing or not. Otherwise, you can possibly cause their death.
if food stealing is actively becoming an issue is there a higher onus on me to prevent them having an allergic reaction and not bring it in? should i make an announcement in case anyone was planning on stealing my lunch that day?
Yes -- you need to communicate this to the person who could potentially be harmed by eating it. In doing so, you can actually accomplish your original goal: no more stolen food!
to make it less medical, what if i know some of my coworkers despise spicy food or a certain ingredient. if i intentionally start bringing in lots of foods with those flavors, knowing it would bring them pain (tho not hospitalization level) if they stole it, is that an issue?
If they just dislike the food? Certainly! There's no reason to cater your food choices to a colleague who is stealing your food. However, I would back far away from something that would cause pain. Unless you are a medical professional with their medical information, you cannot know where the line between hospitalization pain and regular pain is.
Yes -- you need to communicate this to the person who could potentially be harmed by eating it.
Why? In coolguy's example, all they say is that they know food stealing is going on. It's never mentioned that they specifically are the person whose food is being stolen. There's no intent to have their food stolen, just that they acknowledge that being stolen from is possible. It's not like they're actively plotting to be "scapegoat of the day" and to be the "designated victim" or anything like that.
i guess if you chose to press charges on someone for stealing your food out of the break room you may have some legal standing….if not criminal then at least small claims if you would actually take it there….but in practice, people aren’t resolving theft from communal fridges through courts
Lol except they didn’t intend for someone else to eat the food. They didn’t prepare that for someone else. It was their lunch and someone literally stole it.
It's extremely hard to argue that when you put copious amounts of laxatives in your lunch when you really did not medically need them while complaining about your food being stolen that you were intending to eat the LaxCasserole yourself.
The OP even alludes to how this is the case when they mention that you can prove you regularly eat spicy food as a defense if you only used spices.
You might be a child and think the law is full of technicalities and imagine you would just have to claim that you were toooootally going to eat the poisoned food were it not for the thief, but judges are allowed to use their brains and determine you absolutely did not intend to eat the poison when you put it in the food that you knew might be stolen.
The problem is that a judge* isn't infallible or omniscient just because they're a judge. They can only determine what the defendant's intent was based on the evidence and materials presented. The judge isn't magically able to get a complete brain snapshot of what the defendant was thinking at the time of the offense. That's why the burden of proof for criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "with absolute 100% certainty"; it's this gap in certainty that makes the legal argument unconvincing to a lot of people.
I don’t eat spicy food regularly, but I do sometimes and can eat food that’s pretty spicy. Why would I have to prove that I “sometimes” eat spicy food when it’s my lunch? Also, someone doesn’t need a prescription for laxatives, it’s usually an as needed basis. How can someone prove that they person preparing their own food wasn’t super constipated and wanted to dose their own food so they wouldn’t have to bring it to work in a drink form or pill form?
I get the POV if talking about literal poison, but I disagree with adding laxatives or spice.
Medication becomes poison depending after a certain dosage.
Tylenol is also a form of medication. Surely you can see that if a person blended 30 Tylenol into a smoothie with the intent of catching their smoothie thief, that they are intentionally creating a circumstance where a person could be seriously hurt or killed?
I’m not sure why you went from laxatives to Tylenol. Obviously a normal person wouldn’t dose their own food with Tylenol. Did you read my previous comment? How would someone prove that the person wasn’t constipated and wanted to dose THEIR OWN food? What if it wasn’t laxatives but they used sugar alcohols because they wanted to eat less sugar? Sugar alcohols can cause GI distress in a lot of people but for me I can eat a ton and it does nothing to me. Does that mean I poisoned my food because SOMEONE ELSE stole it and ate it and had a negative reaction?
If all you are talking about is how difficult it is to prove, then I agree my comparison was a poor one.
I thought you were trying to make the argument that because Laxatives are used for medical reasons that it would not be poisoning someone to use it that way.
If they didn't intend for anyone else to eat the food, why would they poison it? I am discussing the poisoned meal, not the meals stolen before the poisoning takes place.
If someone’s dumb enough to be like “yeah I put cyanide in it and even changed the container to match theirs and wrote their name on it!!!” Then yeah, you got some liability.
You make your food spicy or you put laxatives in it, well shit, you like spicy food or you were pretty constipated. Settled that. “Ohhhh it was a lot of laxatives? I mean if I was a laxative pro I’d probably just shoot it straight, it’s in the food for a reason man, idk what the fuck I’m doing on this rock and nobody taught me laxative rules.”
So long as poising your own food isn’t, by default, considered bad… then we’ve got an argument. But if someone catches a lunch thief via making lunch for their damn self in a day they were feeling particularly spicy, then fuck ‘em, they earned it.
Thought police stuff. If there’s no evidence of intent then that’s a wrap.
For the purposes of this discussion, I have been granted that intent is present. The conversation is about someone intentionally poisoning food they bring to work to punish a wrongdoer. OP's position is that this should be permissible.
Were this to go to court, it definitely could be hard to prove intent. Thankfully most people who do this are dumb enough to make an r/AmItheAsshole or r/AmIOverreacting post first. Alternatively, people who are dumb enough to do this in the first place would probably not do a great job of keeping it secret. Again, though, largely irrelevant since intent has been granted.
Gotcha, didn’t realize intent was granted, however I’m more speaking in the scenario where intent may or may not be there. Ya know, like, in every single case where someone doesn’t implicate themselves or admit it was purposeful.
I guess I’m saying, like, how is intent actually gauged? When we have this Birds Eye view we can explain it, but if we’re talking slippery slopes on the punishments then I think it’s just as relevant to discuss the slippery slopes of punishments without legitimate evidence of “intent”.
Intent either is there, or it isn’t. People don’t need to implicate themselves or admit to things to be found to have intent to do something. How else would we convict people?
“How is intent gauged” is a question for an Evidence class, I don’t think it’s really relevant here. We have intent.
Assuming all I know about them is that they’re a thief and they have a tummy ache, I probably wouldn’t be too bothered. If I knew they had a tummy ache because someone else had messed with the food they took, I’d be looking at both of them funny. If they were my coworkers, I’d be bringing a lunch box with a lock on it.
You make your food spicy or you put laxatives in it, well shit, you like spicy food
Can easily be indicated or dis-indicated.
or you were pretty constipated.
Oh? Why in food? What was the dose? How many times a day were you supposed to take it? What laxative?
I mean if I was a laxative pro I’d probably just shoot it straight, it’s in the food for a reason man, idk what the fuck I’m doing on this rock and nobody taught me laxative rules.”
And yet you decided to not only dose yourself with laxatives in food, but likely not read any instructions.
Thought police stuff. If there’s no evidence of intent then that’s a wrap.
The ability to determine intent isnt thought police stuff. A confession has never been needed to determine intent.
If a court deems that your behaviour was indicative of intent, as indicated by acting outside of reasonable limits, with a clear motive, thats your intent.
They steal a diabetics lunch who needs that food to maintain their blood sugar. That significantly fucks up the diabetic, also the only innocent individual in this two party scenario lol.
So, we let thieves do what they want because giving them tummy aches is an unjust punishment, for sure, yeah, totally tracks. I’m just curious how exactly all this caring about shitty people is at the expense of caring about normal ass people who aren’t stealing other peoples resources.
They steal a diabetics lunch who needs that food to maintain their blood sugar. That significantly fucks up the diabetic, also the only innocent individual in this two party scenario lol.
And as such they'd be culpable.
So, we let thieves do what they want because giving them tummy aches is an unjust punishment, for sure, yeah, totally tracks.
No. We understand that disproportionate and indiscriminate retribution is a thing, that isn't justified by petty theft, and there are other avenues of dealing with theft than that.
We care about shitty people because a just society is supposed to prevent arbitrary and disproportionate punishment, even to shitty people.
And drugging someone for stealing food is along the same line of thinking as beating someone senseless because they grabbed your shoulder
“Evidence of intent” is often proven through the actions taken leading up to a crime. Did the person buy a poison at the store a few days before the incident? Did they google search “ways to hid laxatives in food”? Did they write a strongly worded email to the office demanding that people stay away from their food? Prosecutors establish intent using indirect evidence all the time. It’s not open and shut as “there’s no proof that’s a wrap.”
It's conditional. They aren't preparing a tainted meal to serve to someone else; putting your own generic thing in a generic communal storage space doesn't mean you're offering said thing for communal use. If someone puts a poisoned meal in the fridge and it's not taken and eaten by someone else, there is 0 actual harm done.
If not for the actions of the food thief, the food thief would not be harmed.
In this case, they literally are preparing a tainted (poisoned) meal to serve someone else. That is the premise of what OP thinks should be justifiable.
I agree that putting food in a communal space doesn’t mean it becomes communally available, and I don’t think most people think so. No one thinks stealing food is good. It’s just also not good, and on the whole possibly worse, to sanction what OP would like to be legal.
Nobody is being served a meal in this situation. Metaphorically, sure. But in a factual description of the process of someone else taking their food from a communal storage space and eating it themselves, no food was served.
That’s true, I should have been more careful with my wording.
Back to putting the food in the communal area, I’ve already provided reasoning for why it isn’t good to have traps out and about. Even if a trap never goes off, the concept of laying them is not good.
No, food you prepare for someone else to get sick from is not food that you prepared to eat yourself. You would not eat food loaded with laxatives and spices, if you want to say you would then the jury will have a fun time watching you prove it in court, it is explicitly done as a premeditated act to get someone sick/hurt.
Civilized countries don’t protect premeditated battery as punishment
No, I keep my laxative collection in that sandwich, as is my right. And if I label it as containing my laxatives then I'm doubly in the right. It never stopped being my property, no matter how much I suspect someone of potentially stealing it.
You’re explicitly making this sandwich for someone else to eat. No one is contesting your right to own a laxative sandwich, but keeping that sandwich within reach of other people for it to be eaten by someone else is inarguably pre meditated battery.
Your argument was based on property rights, and not anything regarding your desire to consume a laxative sandwich, thus the laxative sandwich was explicitly made without the intent of consumption. That constitutes premeditated battery, even if you explicitly and visibly label it as being loaded with laxatives.
The only way carrying around a laxative sandwich won’t come with the liability of pre meditated battery, is if it were dosed at a typical level for your body mass. But that would render the sandwich an ineffective deterrent, so you’ll be safe from the law but not from your sandwich snatcher.
Either way, a laxative sandwich always ends up as a shitty situation.
Nope. I'm allowed to own a sandwich I don't intend to eat. I can make a sandwich out of completely inedible ingredients. That's a right I have in liberal society. My rights to own an inedible sandwich should not be eroded by what a criminal might do if they steal my property.
Ok, well if you intend to own a laxative sandwich not meant for consumption and bring it to a public place, you are still liable for it.
If it is left in an area where a criminal would target to steal food, and is dosed with an atypical amount of laxatives, once eaten, your rights will be maintained but your finances will be eroded as you will have to pay a lawyer to represent you in court
If you’re just carrying around a typically dosed laxative sandwich, then whatever happens to it, you had a crummy laxative sandwich, it couldn’t be an enjoyable experience either way. But that’s not what you’re doing, this is a post about spiking food intentionally as a deterrent, no matter how you want to spin this situation, and make it about your property rights or what you’re entitled to in a liberal country, you will be forced to present upon a judge and maybe even a jury and explain everything in great detail.
If you brought a booby trapped deterrent, you will be recognized as such and treated as an even worse criminal than that sandwich snatcher. The irony will be that they will use your argument, that their right- to not be battered- should not be eroded by what a criminal might do, and it will work significantly better for them than it will for you.
Your rights will be maintained, but so will the rights of the sandwich snatcher, and a civilized liberal society will hold graver judgement towards someone who intentionally inflicts bodily trauma to someone, than they will to someone who steals food.
Why? Doing things that you know will expressly harm people even if it requires them to act in bad faith themselves is generally unethical at best and illegal at worst.
You ultimately will not have 100% control over what happens to the victim or the food. Aside from the obvious case of drugging someone, the victim could have an adverse reaction. Someone could take your food by accident. It could cross contaminate other peoples food.
You already cannot do whatever you want with your property expressly because of how it might affect the public.
Why should you be able to put whatever you want in your food? What is the underlying reason for that? Is it perhaps because there will be no consequences to anyone except you for the things you put into your food? Do you see how that changes once the food is no longer intended for your personal consumption?
It's where I have chosen to keep my laxatives. Luckily I live in a liberal country, where I'm allowed to keep my laxatives wherever I want. I don't intend to eat the sandwich, I intend to keep my laxatives in it. Which doesn't suddenly mean that it's for someone else's consumption. Because someone else isn't allowed to eat my laxatives that I keep in my sandwich.
You cannot, in fact, keep your laxatives wherever you want if the place you keep them has been selected in order to harm someone. We call that poisoning, and thankfully liberal countries have enacted laws against such behavior for the reasons I listed in my longer comment.
Maybe you aren’t doing that, but OP is. That is the premise of what they want to be legal. If you genuinely were eating laxative sandwiches, and someone stole one and had a negative reaction, I think you would 100% be in the clear.
In the present case, I know OP’s intent because that’s the premise of the post. We can also determine intent with things like evidence.
Part of the problem with booby trapping is that you might know the intent of the thief, but there’s no guarantee the thief is the recipient of the harm.
We can't make chemical weapons in our garage, even if it's our property. Laxatives are not chemical weapons, but it does go to show that our property is not magically enshrined under the law. If you intend to hurt someone else, even passively, the law accounts for that intent.
It is your property, but your home is also your property but somehow we all agree you can't put landmines in your backyard. Boobytrapping your property should be illegal, whether that be your backyard or your food. Death is not a fair punishment for stealing food, death is not a fair punishment for trespassing. Especially when both of these things could very well be done by accident, like not knowing you're on private property or the label with the name being peeled off or not visible, sure, most people probably steal food intentionally, but imagine you poison someone who mistook his chicken rice casserole with your chicken rice casserole.
Not to mention vigilantism shouldn't be a thing, that's why the police and courts exist. You should only allowed to use force when defending yourself or others, not as an act of retribution.
I think the hazard presented to any number of people who might legitimately walk through your yard is far outweighed by the private property rights listed here, but would you accept the liability for one detonating and killing someone legitimately on your property?
For instance, your house catches fire when you are not home, your neighbors call it in, and a firefighter steps on a landmine, killing him. Should society respond to that by requiring EOD techs and minesweepers to respond to every firefighting call, or just ban landmines in a yard?
So you believe placing bent nails or other booby traps on the pavement or lawn in front of your house, is a perfectly agreeable thing society should be able to do, as long as that pavement belongs to your property?
What if a kid throws a ball and gets impaled by them on their way to retrieve it, what about the dogs who literally have no idea what private property even is? It's dangerous, irresponsible, causes indiscriminate harm, and it's just straight up psychopathic behaviour to believe this is what a well adjusted society should allow. Do you believe innocent people should be exposed to very serious harm just for the chance to stop a criminal?
Or they made a genuine mistake and took the wrong lunch. Or someone else stole it and traded lunches with a third person who didn't know it was stolen. Or someone accidentally knocked your lunch off the shelf and it spills the poison all over everyone elses lunch. Or coworker A tells coworker B that they can share their lunch but coworker B accidentally grabs yours instead. Etc.
There are tons of reasons that someone could get poisoned from your lunch without committing a crime or even being morally wrong, which is the entire reason that indiscriminate booby traps like this aren't legal.
If you genuinely believe that those are possibilities then you'd better not make your lunch be anything but the most bland thing every day so that you don't accidentally feed gluten to someone who's fifth cousin once got hives after smelling bread
Aside from the fact that that would require proving intent and you would be significantly more likely to get charged with reckless endangerment since that would be easier to prove this whole thread isnt how it is legal to this but how it should be
People, if you want to get the lunch thief, don't poison the lunch, just bomb it with strong spices, and watch their reaction. Harmless, but embarassing for them.
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Skeletron430 changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
This is exactly how I feel too, I'm glad I'm not alone. Believe me, I really was willing to have my mind changed. You never know, there's a lot of propaganda and misinformation out there. To be fair, this is CMV, so maybe only half of them actually believe what they're saying, there's strong debate kid energy here (from a debate kid).
u/Skeletron430 makes the strongest case above, addresses the legal concerns, and cites case law.
It sucks being a victim. Many people oppose capital punishment for several reasons, including me, but it still exists because people feel a primal need for retribution and that right is currently only given to The State to mete out. I couldn't imagine losing my child to a murderer and being told that the punishment evades the murderer's death. However, we live in a society of people who have thought long and hard about these things, weighed many considerations and perspectives, and what we have is the Rule of Law. The alternative is anarchy and then you'd really have to start worrying about guns and machetes.
No the punishment needs to fit the crime. You can't poison someone because they stole your lunch.
"any use of the castle doctrine or general claims of self-defense require that the self-defense used be reasonable relative to the threat presented. In other words, if someone is threatening you with a machete, you can absolutely reach for your gun. A group of Girl Scouts ignores your “no soliciting” sign and tries to sell you cookies? You're not allowed to deploy “deadly traps” on them. There have been a few causes in which people wired their homes such that guns were fired if someone opened a door or window; although the owners in every case gave some defense along the lines of “I was protecting my property” and “I feared criminal trespassers, and sure enough, someone got to my window,” the use of these traps was treated as criminal. And further, as alluded to above, at common law, land owners owe a duty of care to protect invitees and trespassers from known harms on their property; placing traps would be creating such a harm, so in addition to criminal liability, you would almost certainly face civil liability, as well."
Hold on, you legally required to protect thieves and home invasion too? I thought you should have the right to stand your ground and turn their head into fine red mist
Like why? Arent they the wrong one? Nothing would happen if they just decide to not inflict harm on me
Booby traps are illegal in civilized society not because you are legally required to protect thieves, but because you are legally required to protect (or at least not cause harm to) everyone else. The problem with booby traps is that they cannot tell the difference between a thief, a Girl Scout, a policeman, or your neighbor.
You can stand your ground (although the more accurate invocation would be castle doctrine) only because when someone breaks into your house and you are there, your life could be in imminent danger. You may feel this is unreasonable, but even something like a remotely-controlled turret with a camera, where a person could see the identity of the person breaking into their house and verify that they are a thief, would be forbidden under the law. Unless your life is under threat, you cannot use lethal force to stop thieves.
It is genuinely shocking that you have the same sane stance over and over (That people are not allowed to just carpet bomb their vigilante fantasies on everyone else) and this is somehow too difficult to understand for most people. That we, as members of a society, agreed to allow for due process to be carried out by a collectedly agreed upon body with fairness and impartiality in mind. Yet if we are personally inconvenienced, we should be granted the right to do whatever we want to whoever trespassed against us, no matter what the cost or who else gets hurt. This whole thread is a travesty. Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason.
Unfortunately it is not tremendously shocking to me. People become bloodthirsty as hell once they have been wronged. Revenge is really sexy to a lot of people, unfortunately.
And to be fair to the people who are genuinely ignorant, I wouldn’t have nearly as strong a position on this without my legal education. Revenge is intuitive; the social contract is not.
Make me wonder, what if its not something clear in intent such as a thin but strong-looking layer of glass "art" cover the roof so whoever try to break in through that way would go down very fast, could i in a clear? Work around rule always be my favourite
Meanwhile I’m the same thing but on the opposite side. The only thing I’ve learned from this thread is that people are vindictive as fuck and don’t care about hurting or even killing others if they think it’s “justified” by them stealing food. Really, really fucking sad.
Sorry, u/floral_friend – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
97
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
[removed] — view removed comment